This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
I think the part under nutrition where the bible is cited is not really adding much value to the article abouh it's nutritional benefits and could be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.89.234 ( talk) 00:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
This is the worst wikipedia article I have come across yet. All the folklore should be moved to another article. Especially, since this is not medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.199.47 ( talk) 14:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the others that this article is very poorly written. The language and tone has to be changed to meet wikipedia quality guidelines.
Besides, I was really hoping to see a section on "health risks". Importantly, there should be the mention of honey potentially containing spores of clostridium botulinum, because of which it should not be given to children below one. - Subh83 ( talk | contribs) 22:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
References: Must be revised entirely, some of them are unproven alternative medicine books, most of the other are severely out of context — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.22.49 ( talk) 18:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how this article looked before, but I would completely agree with removing the unfounded folklore and alternative medicine references. However the page is currently excessively brief. Most of the topics state "there is no good evidence" when, in fact, there may actually be literature for some of these topics. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, and therefore all available information related to the topics at hand should be presented in a fair and non-partial manner. Also, I realize that this page has been recommended for revision as part of the Medicine Portal initiative. To that end I appreciate the work of the previous editors. As a practitioner, I utilize Wikipedia as a source of information, certainly not for treatment advice, and I draw my own conclusions based on all resources available. Maybe I'm an optimist but I believe most users are intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions as well. When I come to Wikipedia and information from various studies on the topic are not mentioned, or all are summarized with a terse blanket statement, then I am forced to do the research myself, and Wikipedia no longer becomes a time-saving tool for me. In summary, as the article stands currently, we could do a better job at researching the various topics and summarizing the available literature. Dryphi ( talk) 02:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
I think the part under nutrition where the bible is cited is not really adding much value to the article abouh it's nutritional benefits and could be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.89.234 ( talk) 00:14, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
This is the worst wikipedia article I have come across yet. All the folklore should be moved to another article. Especially, since this is not medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.170.199.47 ( talk) 14:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the others that this article is very poorly written. The language and tone has to be changed to meet wikipedia quality guidelines.
Besides, I was really hoping to see a section on "health risks". Importantly, there should be the mention of honey potentially containing spores of clostridium botulinum, because of which it should not be given to children below one. - Subh83 ( talk | contribs) 22:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
References: Must be revised entirely, some of them are unproven alternative medicine books, most of the other are severely out of context — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.22.49 ( talk) 18:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't know how this article looked before, but I would completely agree with removing the unfounded folklore and alternative medicine references. However the page is currently excessively brief. Most of the topics state "there is no good evidence" when, in fact, there may actually be literature for some of these topics. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, and therefore all available information related to the topics at hand should be presented in a fair and non-partial manner. Also, I realize that this page has been recommended for revision as part of the Medicine Portal initiative. To that end I appreciate the work of the previous editors. As a practitioner, I utilize Wikipedia as a source of information, certainly not for treatment advice, and I draw my own conclusions based on all resources available. Maybe I'm an optimist but I believe most users are intelligent enough to draw their own conclusions as well. When I come to Wikipedia and information from various studies on the topic are not mentioned, or all are summarized with a terse blanket statement, then I am forced to do the research myself, and Wikipedia no longer becomes a time-saving tool for me. In summary, as the article stands currently, we could do a better job at researching the various topics and summarizing the available literature. Dryphi ( talk) 02:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)